Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 17:11:31 12/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 2002 at 19:48:09, Rolf Tueschen wrote: <snip> >Also a debate between you and me and others here is the best what could happen >because that is interdisciplinary cooperation. You could bring the very best of >your talents into the debate because others might go visiting on too many >tangents... then you organize the recovery! > >Rolf Tueschen My debating skills are worse than those of a newborn baby! I know my limitations. That is my one great strength [I think.] Besides, there are other productive formats for discourse besides debate. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ But I would like to get back to your ideas regarding chess software. In particular, your feeling that it would not be possible to measure the strength of a chess engine [or a human either, for that matter] by using a set of test positions. When students graduates from college with a Bachelor's Degree, here in the USA, they are encouraged to take a comprehensive exam which is intended to indicate whether or not the student learned anything. [Versus wasting several years.] I had to take such a test. As an electrical engineer, I was required to take the GRE Advanced Test in Engineering. I did very well on that test and was admitted to Graduate School primarily for that reason. I would like to suggest that, if I had to take such a test, it is only fair that every chess engine should have to take an equivalent test too! The test would be very comprehensive. It would include five or ten suites of test positions. Perhaps 500 positions in all, minimum. A new set of positions would be used each year. In the proposed scenario, the testing organization should have the responsibility and resources necessary to design and adjust the tests to match the SSDF results. In other words, I propose a comprehensive test which has, itself, been tested and verified against the SSDF [and similar] test data. If you stick to your guns on this, you will assert that the proposed idea would fail miserably. Right? But why would it fail? Could you be specific, please? : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) Bob D.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.